A news article in the national section of the Times reports on Obama campaign and administration officials who have gone on to take sides in the fight over whether the U.S. government should approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Times article refers to "the half-dozen top aides who now work as well-paid consultants for environmental groups," and it also reports that "A handful of former Obama aides are working on the opposite side."
Why characterize the compensation of the former aides working for the environmental groups but not say anything at all about the pay of the aides who are working in favor of the pipeline?
And instead of offering the Times reporter or editors' opinions about how "well-paid" the environmental consultants are, maybe the Times should just report the numbers on how much they are being paid, and leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether the compensation is adequate. For some Times readers, no amount of money might be enough to have to deal with a bunch of self-righteous environmentalists all day. Others would probably leap at the chance to volunteer for the work in exchange for minimum wage. The consultants may seem "well-paid" compared to newspaper reporters, but not compared to hedge fund managers.
Bottom line: If the Times is going to comment on the pay of the former Obama officials turned environmental activists, the right way to do it is with reported facts, not glancing asides. And if it is going to include glancing asides, then the fair approach would be to treat the former officials on both sides of the Keystone battle the same way, rather than singling out the environmentalist side of the fight for snarky treatment.